hate the ACLU?

[ktgrok]

I was struck at the FPEA conference by the astounding number of people that preach on and on about the importance of the constitution, heck, with whole lectures on it, that HATE the ACLU. This doesn't make sense to me. If you love and respect the constitution and Bill of Rights, doesn't it make sense that you would appreciate an organization whose mission is to protect the rights granted in the constitution and Bill of Rights???

 

Or is my family the only one that memberships in both the NRA and the ACLU?:lol:

[DawnM]

:lurk5:

[KristinaBreece]

Or is my family the only one that memberships in both the NRA and the ACLU?:lol:

 

You're not totally alone. :001_smile:

[ELaurie]

:auto:

[ktgrok]

:auto:

 

yeah, I guess I woke up feeling spunky.Or brave.

[brightside]

Or is my family the only one that memberships in both the NRA and the ACLU?:lol:

 

Nope, not alone. We are living in very scary times. Americans have forgotten what it means to be an American.

Edited May 29, 2011 by brightside

[ereks mom]

...If you love and respect the constitution and Bill of Rights, doesn't it make sense that you would appreciate an organization whose mission is to protect the rights granted in the constitution and Bill of Rights???

 

I think the reason the ACLU garners so much hatred is that is that while its purpose (to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country"--quoted from their website) sounds noble in theory, in practice, it's next to impossible to uphold everyone's rights at the same time. So instead of helping everyone, the ACLU tends to come across as being against everyone.

Edited May 29, 2011 by ereks mom

[KristinaBreece]

yeah, I guess I woke up feeling spunky.Or brave.

 

That's what I thought... but I had to chime in to support you on this one. lol-- It looks like we're quite the minority. 3 HS families that are card carrying members of the NRA & the ACLU. :001_smile:

[brightside]

That's what I thought... but I had to chime in to support you on this one. lol-- It looks like we're quite the minority. 3 HS families that are card carrying members of the NRA & the ACLU. :001_smile:

 

Don't forget Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Edited May 29, 2011 by brightside

[DawnM]

Quiver's rolls: Are the rolls difficult to make? I have a recipe that is FANTASTIC, BUT, they take FOREVER to make.

 

FWIW: I am a member of NEITHER the ACLU nor the NRA.

 

Dawn

 

:auto:

[ELaurie]

Quiver's rolls: Are the rolls difficult to make? I have a recipe that is FANTASTIC, BUT, they take FOREVER to make.

 

FWIW: I am a member of NEITHER the ACLU nor the NRA.

 

Dawn

 

Well, they're delicious. but they it does take time to make them.

[ereks mom]

Can you give some examples of how they come across as being against everyone? I don't understand that.

 

What I mean by this is that when the ACLU condemns group A, it is perceived to be defending group B. When they condemn group B, they are thought to be defending group A. Take a look here and here for a little bit of what I'm talking about.

[Jennifer3141]

That's what I thought... but I had to chime in to support you on this one. lol-- It looks like we're quite the minority. 3 HS families that are card carrying members of the NRA & the ACLU. :001_smile:

 

It's 4! Well, DH is the member of the NRA but we both belong to the ACLU. Can you have a family membership in the NRA? He probably signed us all up if you can... :D

[duckens]

ktgrok says:

I was struck at the FPEA conference by the astounding number of people that preach on and on about the importance of the constitution, heck, with whole lectures on it, that HATE the ACLU. This doesn't make sense to me. If you love and respect the constitution and Bill of Rights, doesn't it make sense that you would appreciate an organization whose mission is to protect the rights granted in the constitution and Bill of Rights???

 

Or is my family the only one that memberships in both the NRA and the ACLU?:lol:

I'm not sure that our family has memberships to either, but we support both. Loverboy has several guns and loves to shoot targets. I am not 'into' guns, but am in favor of the 2nd Amendment as a lover of the Constitution. We both value the ACLU.

 

When individual claim to be lovers of the Constitution, but hate the ACLU, I think it is a matter of missing information on their part.

 

***Duckens is trying to not be banned by dipping her toes into the political/religious waters***

 

In my extended family's part, they complain that the ACLU is anti-Christian and anti-Conservative. They don't know that the ACLU has defended a long list of both.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2729138

 

Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and Pat Robertson are also high profile cases defended by the ACLU.

 

It's not personal. It's just the first amendment.

[brightside]

The ACLU protects free speech in people they may not even agree with. I support the organization not because of individual cases but because of its overall job as a much need government watchdog.

 

Although it is from a movie, one of my favorite quotes on this issue.

 

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." President Andrew Shepherd, movie American President.

 

 

This is what I support. I may not agree with what you say, but I am willing to defend your right to say it.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think both the NRA and ACLU do important work, though I may not always agree with them.

[pqr]

Roger N. Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU and its executive director till 1950 said the following.

 

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the New Deal because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

 

My issue with the ACLU is not what it purports to do, Defend the Constitution, but rather its interpretation of the Constitution.

 

The Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not, to me, outlaw a prayer at a graduation especially in cases where every student wants a prayer, it does not mean that a cross placed on public land 80 years ago to memorialize our dead from WWI is illegal. This is my issue with the ACLU.

 

That being said in some cases I fully agree with them.

[Stacy in NJ]

choose to defend. They are frequently quite comfortable turning a blind eye to constitutional questions if they support the right of conservatives or conservative groups.

 

I donate generously to FIRE, instead of the ACLU.

 

What I mean by this is that when the ACLU condemns group A, it is perceived to be defending group B. When they condemn group B, they are thought to be defending group A. Take a look here and here for a little bit of what I'm talking about.

[Denise in Florida]

tricky subject but important

 

I am not 'into' guns, but am in favor of the 2nd Amendment as a lover of the Constitution. We both value the ACLU.

 

me too

 

When individual claim to be lovers of the Constitution, but hate the ACLU, I think it is a matter of missing information on their part.

 

yep, and unfortunately this sometimes leads me to discounting other things they say because I think they are misinformed. I am sure I have lost some gold among the dross.

 

***Duckens is trying to not be banned by dipping her toes into the political/religious waters***

 

me too, again :tongue_smilie:

 

[sleepymommy]

Roger N. Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU and its executive director till 1950 said the following.

 

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the New Deal because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

 

My issue with the ACLU is not what it purports to do, Defend the Constitution, but rather its interpretation of the Constitution.

 

The Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not, to me, outlaw a prayer at a graduation especially in cases where every student wants a prayer, it does not mean that a cross placed on public land 80 years ago to memorialize our dead from WWI is illegal. This is my issue with the ACLU.

 

That being said in some cases I fully agree with them.

 

 

If your going to describe the beliefs of a person, please divulge the whole evolution of their beliefs.

 

I don't know how to do the quote thing, so I'm just going to copy paste from wikipedia (which I know isn't the best). About Robert N. Baldwin:

 

"In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal." Later, however, as more and more information came out about Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with Soviet-style communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[4] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny".[5] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members, but that resolution was rescinded in 1967, allowing Communist Party members to rejoin the ACLU."

 

I'm not a member of either, but I do support the ideals of both.

[mcconnellboys]

I think you should probably take a look at the ACLU's stance on issues since about the 1970's.... They are not what they once were....

[pqr]

If your going to describe the beliefs of a person, please divulge the whole evolution of their beliefs.

 

I don't know how to do the quote thing, so I'm just going to copy paste from wikipedia (which I know isn't the best). About Robert N. Baldwin:

 

"In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal." Later, however, as more and more information came out about Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with Soviet-style communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[4] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny".[5] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members, but that resolution was rescinded in 1967, allowing Communist Party members to rejoin the ACLU."

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the quote was to indicate the mindset of the founder during the formative years of the ACLU.

 

Comdemning Soviet Style Communism and condemning Communism are two very different concepts. Stalinism was not the same as Communism. Further attempting to drive out Communists in 1940, certainly a laudable act, may only have been indicative of the fact that the American Communist Pary was well and truly infiltrated by the NKVD.

 

He may have said it but I have found nothing in his words to indicate that he opposed this: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth".

[dirty ethel rackham]

The ACLU protects free speech in people they may not even agree with. I support the organization not because of individual cases but because of its overall job as a much need government watchdog.

 

Although it is from a movie, one of my favorite quotes on this issue.

 

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." President Andrew Shepherd, movie American President.

 

 

This is what I support. I may not agree with what you say, but I am willing to defend your right to say it.

 

:iagree::iagree: I have not agreed with their positions on things, but I think they do important work. The constitution is there for everyone, not just the people who think like me.

[elizabeth]

The purpose of the quote was to indicate the mindset of the founder during the formative years of the ACLU.

 

Comdemning Soviet Style Communism and condemning Communism are two very different concepts. Stalinism was not the same as Communism. Further attempting to drive out Communists in 1940, certainly a laudable act, may only have been indicative of the fact that the American Communist Pary was well and truly infiltrated by the NKVD.

 

He may have said it but I have found nothing in his words to indicate that he opposed this: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth".

 

 

You are asking that someone prove a negative. What you are asking is akin to me demanding that people who utilize Henty in their home education plans prove that he was not, in fact ,a racist. Frankly, proving that someone did not in fact believe something is the specialty of the Former NKVD. :lol: Interesting discussion though.

[pqr]

You are asking that someone prove a negative. What you are asking is akin to me demanding that people who utilize Henty in their home education plans prove that he was not, in fact ,a racist. Frankly, proving that someone did not in fact believe something is the specialty of the Former NKVD. :lol: Interesting discussion though.

 

 

No, I am simply asking if there were any words of his that recanted the opinion in original quote. A condemnation of Soviet-style Communism is NOT necessarily a denunciation of the views in the first quote. Two very different things.

 

Today, in Europe, many Communists try to distance themselves from Communism as seen in the Soviet Union through the same terminology. "We are Communists and the Soviets corrupted true Communism." The fact remains that Communism is an evil system that undermines human initiative and drive and naturally leads to just what was seen in Communist nation after Communist nation but people will still split hairs as seen in the Wiki article.

 

Did he ever denounce Communism as a system? That is my question.

Edited May 30, 2011 by pqr

[elizabeth]

Fair question and one to which I do not have an answer. However it is interesting to read the FAQ component of the ACLU website and I am posting the link in order that those who are interested in their answer to that particular question can read it. I do acknowledge that it does not constitute an answer to your charge that he failed to rebuke all forms of communism. However, I could care less if he was a card carrying member. The question is about ACLU and the freedoms they seek to protect. I am a card carrying member and proud of it. I know this is shocking:lol: We are who we are and the world is better for it. Diversity of thought is a good thing as is the freedom to agree to disagree. And on that note I bow out as our concerns seem to be so different that it is not constructive to debate over what is important in terms of First Amendment protections as understood by two very different people.

http://www.aclu.org/faqs

Edited May 30, 2011 by elizabeth
I failed to provide a link to the information being discussed

[Michele B]

I think the reason the ACLU garners so much hatred is that is that while its purpose (to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country"--quoted from their website) sounds noble in theory, in practice, it's next to impossible to uphold everyone's rights at the same time. So instead of helping everyone, the ACLU tends to come across as being against everyone.

 

It does seem to be selective.

[tntgoodwin]

I donate to the ACLJ instead of the ACLU, and GOA instead of the NRA. But I see the value of each. I don't 100 percent agree with any of them, but give where I agree the most, and where it is needed the most.

They each have their benefits.

[ktgrok]

It does seem to be selective.

 

Yes, but wouldn't those cases still be for the greater good? i mean, even if all they did was defend the KKK's right to spew hatred, I'd still be glad someone was protecting free speech. Or at the least I wouldn't hate them, because as much as I hate the KKK I love the 1st ammendment more. Does that make sense?

[Farrar]

I think the reason the ACLU garners so much hatred is that is that while its purpose (to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country"--quoted from their website) sounds noble in theory, in practice, it's next to impossible to uphold everyone's rights at the same time. So instead of helping everyone, the ACLU tends to come across as being against everyone.

 

I don't think that's it really. In fact, I find that a little defeatist. Are you trying to say that we shouldn't, as a society, strive to defend every person's rights?

 

Look, I'm pretty liberal. I love the ACLU. I donate to the ACLU. The ACLU provided free lawyers for my friends and I when our constitutional rights were violated in high school (and they won out of court for us too). But, I totally get why conservatives don't like the ACLU.

 

The ACLU does some stuff that I think is honestly off mission for them, like supporting affirmative action and working against school vouchers. When you put that together with the fact that they work on separation of church and state issues (for the separation, of course) and they defend a lot of people and causes that are pretty repugnant (Nazis, criminals, foul language, and the like), I don't find it much of a mystery why they rub conservatives the wrong way.

 

Now, on the other hand, the demonization of the ACLU among the right... I find that to be really sad. The vast majority of the things they do are very directly linked to defending a specific part of the constitution, which all Americans should defend in my opinion. There's a difference of opinion there about interpretation, but making out like the ACLU are downright evil and, most bizarrely, "un-American" is just absurd to me.

[cdrumm4448]

Things like this are the reason I despise the ACLU.

 

 

"School officials in Neptune Township, N.J., have bowed to the demands of the ACLU and will cover decades-old religious signs posted in the historic Great Auditorium to allow a 70-year tradition of high school graduations to continue.

 

Instead of the sign, "Holiness to the Lord," a banner will be posted over it saying, "Neptune Township School District ... A Community of Learners." In addition, a banner with the words "So Be Ye Holy" will be covered with another banner saying, “Neptune High School: A School of Excellence and No Excuses."

 

The new banners are meant to appease the American Civil Liberties Union, which had demanded the school district remove all religious signs and symbols from the Methodist-owned auditorium in Ocean Grove, claiming it made non-Christians attending public school graduations feel uncomfortable."

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/new-jersey-high-school-aclu-compromise-grnew-jersey-school-aclu-compromise/#ixzz1NnYPOCSA

 

 

[elizabeth]

Things like this are the reason I despise the ACLU.

 

"School officials in Neptune Township, N.J., have bowed to the demands of the ACLU and will cover decades-old religious signs posted in the historic Great Auditorium to allow a 70-year tradition of high school graduations to continue.

 

Instead of the sign, "Holiness to the Lord," a banner will be posted over it saying, "Neptune Township School District ... A Community of Learners." In addition, a banner with the words "So Be Ye Holy" will be covered with another banner saying, “Neptune High School: A School of Excellence and No Excuses."

 

The new banners are meant to appease the American Civil Liberties Union, which had demanded the school district remove all religious signs and symbols from the Methodist-owned auditorium in Ocean Grove, claiming it made non-Christians attending public school graduations feel uncomfortable."

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/new-jersey-high-school-aclu-compromise-grnew-jersey-school-aclu-compromise/#ixzz1NnYPOCSA

 

I assume that your disdain for the ACLU would be the same if the banner said There is no God but Allah. Or there was a huge Star of David . Or a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building. Or is your outrage not principle of non state sponsored religion but rather merely that it is a christian symbol in question??

[pqr]

I assume that your disdain for the ACLU would be the same if the banner said There is no God but Allah. Or there was a huge Star of David . Or a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building. Or is your outrage not principle of non state sponsored religion but rather merely that it is a christian symbol in question??

 

Well frankly I would not care what the banner said, had it been used for 70 years I would want the school to be able to decide.

 

I really do not think that the intention of the Founders was that a graduation, a dance etc not be able to be held in a church or any other religious building. That simply does not pass the common sense test. Do you think the Founders would have objected?

[Michele B]

I assume that your disdain for the ACLU would be the same if the banner said There is no God but Allah. Or there was a huge Star of David . Or a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building. Or is your outrage not principle of non state sponsored religion but rather merely that it is a christian symbol in question??

 

 

Turn that around, and ask if the ACLU would demand the removal of a Star of David or an Islamic symbol. That is the more interesting question, IMO.

[mommaduck]

I assume that your disdain for the ACLU would be the same if the banner said There is no God but Allah. Or there was a huge Star of David . Or a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building. Or is your outrage not principle of non state sponsored religion but rather merely that it is a christian symbol in question??

 

If the building was owned by a mosque or a synagogue or whatever and that is where it was being held, they no, I would not have a problem with it. Now if I was going to have a problem with it, I could do one of two things: request they move the graduation to a more neutral site or not attend. Asking a place to take down something that represents the religion that OWNS the building is not acceptable.

[cdrumm4448]

I assume that your disdain for the ACLU would be the same if the banner said There is no God but Allah. Or there was a huge Star of David . Or a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building. Or is your outrage not principle of non state sponsored religion but rather merely that it is a christian symbol in question??

 

Your question is rather sarcastic in tone which detracts from your argument, but I'll answer it honestly, anyway.

 

My disdain for the ACLU would be EXACTLY the same if the banner said "There is no God but Allah", or if there was a huge Star of David, or if there was a huge 20 foot pentacle in front of the building.

 

I'm not outraged. I hate that the church (or whatever organization it is that owns the building) isn't allowed to decide for themselves what to put or keep in it. I would never go to a Jewish Temple and expect the Star of David (or any other Jewish symbols) to be covered so I wouldn't be offended as a Christian.

[cdrumm4448]

Turn that around, and ask if the ACLU would demand the removal of a Star of David or an Islamic symbol. That is the more interesting question, IMO.

 

:iagree::glare:

[Lovin Learnin]

Things like this are the reason I despise the ACLU.

 

 

"School officials in Neptune Township, N.J., have bowed to the demands of the ACLU and will cover decades-old religious signs posted in the historic Great Auditorium to allow a 70-year tradition of high school graduations to continue.

 

Instead of the sign, "Holiness to the Lord," a banner will be posted over it saying, "Neptune Township School District ... A Community of Learners." In addition, a banner with the words "So Be Ye Holy" will be covered with another banner saying, “Neptune High School: A School of Excellence and No Excuses."

 

The new banners are meant to appease the American Civil Liberties Union, which had demanded the school district remove all religious signs and symbols from the Methodist-owned auditorium in Ocean Grove, claiming it made non-Christians attending public school graduations feel uncomfortable."

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/new-jersey-high-school-aclu-compromise-grnew-jersey-school-aclu-compromise/#ixzz1NnYPOCSA

 

 

 

We had something similar happen recently in our community, but the ACLU moved in BECAUSE a community member made a complaint. So I guess the question is if someone, anyone is offended by the religious signs should they be addressed, or is it okay to tell someone this is the way it's been done for 70 years so...

[justasque]

I have learned, when there is a story like this one, to not take it at face value but to Google it and get a broad range of articles to get a sense of the big picture and to eliminate as much spin as I can. Most people are pretty reasonable, so there's often info left out that changes the story somewhat; it's usually not as cut-and-dried as originally presented.

 

In Googling this one, it seems like the objection was made not by a total outsider, but by the grandmother of a student who had graduated the year before. She (the grandmother, who had attended the ceremony) objected not just to the religious surroundings, but to "a heavily religious tone to the ceremony, which included student-led invocations and the singing of Christian hymns, most notably "Onward Christian Soldiers.""

 

The agreement with the ACLU included the school board's promise that "At the 2011 graduation ceremony and in the future, the Board of Education will not incorporate any hymn, prayers or other religious content into the graduation ceremony".

 

Which, for me, makes the story quite a bit more complex.

 

FWIW, the US Dept of Ed's policy states:

Prayer at Graduation

 

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies

 

School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Edited May 30, 2011 by askPauline
Links galore!

[Mrs Mungo]

It also seems the ACLU did want the ceremony moved, and covering the phrases with temporary banners was part of the compromise solution.

[justamouse]

I have learned, when there is a story like this one, to not take it at face value but to Google it and get a broad range of articles to get a sense of the big picture and to eliminate as much spin as I can. Most people are pretty reasonable, so there's often info left out that changes the story somewhat; it's usually not as cut-and-dried as originally presented.

 

In Googling this one, it seems like the objection was made not by a total outsider, but by the grandmother of a student who had graduated the year before. She (the grandmother, who had attended the ceremony) objected not just to the religious surroundings, but to "a heavily religious tone to the ceremony, which included student-led invocations and the singing of Christian hymns, most notably "Onward Christian Soldiers.""

 

The agreement with the ACLU included the school board's promise that "At the 2011 graduation ceremony and in the future, the Board of Education will not incorporate any hymn, prayers or other religious content into the graduation ceremony".

 

Which, for me, makes the story quite a bit more complex.

 

FWIW, the US Dept of Ed's policy states:

Prayer at Graduation

 

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies

 

School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

 

Ocean Grove is super Christian. I mean, super Christian. You're not going to have something non Christian in that town. Churches from all over the state go down there for retreats (all denoms). You want a neutral graduation, you need to go somewhere else. I mean, its slogan is God's Square Mile at the Jersey Shore. Hello?

[cdrumm4448]

I am not religious. We don't go to Church. I am a non-practicing Catholic. My problem is the ACLU's repeated attempt to wipe religion (every religion) from the mindset and history of America.

[Lady Florida.]

Ocean Grove is super Christian. I mean, super Christian. You're not going to have something non Christian in that town. Churches from all over the state go down there for retreats (all denoms). You want a neutral graduation, you need to go somewhere else. I mean, its slogan is God's Square Mile at the Jersey Shore. Hello?

 

That doesn't make the town above the law. In fact, they have to work harder to protect the rights of the minority. Protecting the minority from the majority is something our founding fathers felt strongly about. If a town is super atheist, does that give it the right to prevent any houses of worship from being built? It works both ways.

[Michele B]

That doesn't make the town above the law. In fact, they have to work harder to protect the rights of the minority. Protecting the minority from the majority is something our founding fathers felt strongly about. If a town is super atheist, does that give it the right to prevent any houses of worship from being built? It works both ways.

 

 

Protect the minority by all means, but temper that so that the minority does not dictate to the majority.

 

"To compel tolerance is to dispense with it."

 

If "majority rules" is not fair, why is "minority rules" any better?

[OnTheBrink]

I just want to know if there will be kilts in this thread.

 

That's all. :lol:

[pqr]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8162220

 

OK explain this one to me.

[mommaduck]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8162220

 

OK explain this one to me.

 

:lol: Good luck with that one ACLU!

[Spy Car]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8162220

 

OK explain this one to me.

 

More lousy "journalism?"

 

From the South Carolina ACLU website:

 

On April 12, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would join the lawsuit that the ACLU filed in October 2010 challenging a policy at the Berkeley County Detention Center in Moncks Corner, S.C. that bars all books, magazines and newspapers – except for the Bible – from being sent to prisoners as unconstitutional.

 

So the ACLU is jointing the Federal government in challenging a policy that bars all reading material other than the Bible. Explain it me how that gets "spun" into the ACLU sporting porn for inmates :confused:

 

Full press release here:

 

http://www.aclusouthcarolina.org/newsroom/041211_praaclu_pln_suit_doj.pdf

 

Bill

[Tarreymere]

Or is my family the only one that memberships in both the NRA and the ACLU?:lol:

 

Around here we call that being a libertarian :D

[mommaduck]

More lousy "journalism?"

 

From the South Carolina ACLU website:

 

On April 12, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would join the lawsuit that the ACLU filed in October 2010 challenging a policy at the Berkeley County Detention Center in Moncks Corner, S.C. that bars all books, magazines and newspapers – except for the Bible – from being sent to prisoners as unconstitutional.

 

So the ACLU is jointing the Federal government in challenging a policy that bars all reading material other than the Bible. Explain it me how that gets "spun" into the ACLU sporting porn for inmates :confused:

 

Full press release here:

 

http://www.aclusouthcarolina.org/newsroom/041211_praaclu_pln_suit_doj.pdf

 

Bill

Because it's untrue. Even the detention center states that it does not bar other reading materials (other than the Bible) from the inmates. It does bar porn though.

 

The move came after reports surfaced that the facility only allowed inmates to read the Bible. But prison officials said that isn't true and inmates have a wide variety of reading material at their disposal.

 

I'm wondering if they are just barring ACLU's materials (since the ACLU is known as a "troublemaker" always looking for a fight)?

Edited June 1, 2011 by mommaduck